I read the RFC as anybody else, and get as close as possible to cite it when rejecting. The fact that the RFC has loopholes is not my fault.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 01:17, Reindl Harald <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 10.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Rupert Gallagher: > We do not serve freemail > or large ISPs, so our use case is different > than yours. We serve businesses > who own their email by law. When an > employee sends or receives an email, > their employer owns the email, by > law. We can, and we do reject spam: the > recipient will never see it, by > contract. Possibly-spam gets redirected for > manual inspection. Last > january we scored a perfect zero spam on end-users > mailbox, and about 10 > manual inspections with zero false positives. If > providers would pay > their clients for each spam message they deliver, they > would be all > bankrupt, except us that is all fine for you but you pretend > all the time that what you are doing is required by this and that RFC which > is most of the time proven to be a lie or at best lack of understanding on > your side there is a difference between reject spam and pretend whatever > action is mandated by a RFC
